CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 11, 2004 20:47:28 GMT -5
i don't care that clinton had sex in office...i care that he lied point blank to congress and the american people when under oath.
|
|
MattMonroe
Getting Rad
It's like tasing sin on the tip of your tongue, it's more like swallowing it whole...
Posts: 7
|
Post by MattMonroe on Oct 11, 2004 21:23:29 GMT -5
How did Clinton have a higher unemployment rate when Bush is the first president in 72 years to have a net job loss?
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 11, 2004 21:41:19 GMT -5
How did Clinton have a higher unemployment rate when Bush is the first president in 72 years to have a net job loss? That's a good point... also, George Bush lied to the American people about something a little more important than getting a blow job... he said that Saddam had WMD's and that Iraq was involved in Sept. 11... if Clinton can be impeached for lying about a blow job, which by the way is private business, shouldn't Bush be impeached for lying about a war? Maybe he should have just said that we're invading Iraq so he can finish what his daddy started and get a whole bunch more oil for him, his friends, and corporations like Haliburton. Building a nation my ass... more like building a monopoly. |
|
CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 11, 2004 23:05:48 GMT -5
dude...he didn't lie...he was dealt the same deck of cards any president would have, democrat or republican. with the intelligence he got from britain (which is what was in fact wrong) bush put the issue in front of congress. it's not his decision to go to war...it's congress'...and having a majority in congress doesn't matter to republicans...you need a 2/3 majority...that means that over 2/3 of congress believed the same intelligence given to bush. republicans and democrats alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 11, 2004 23:24:52 GMT -5
Well, fuck Congress too... I don't like any politicians. You might not like Farenheit 9/11, but I'm assuming that it's a fact that only one Congressman has an enlisted kid in Iraq... unless he's lying about that also. It's not hard to decide to go to war when it's other people's kids that are dying... don't get me wrong, I'm not going to war either... I think the whole Iraq thing is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 12, 2004 0:04:21 GMT -5
ha, yeah right.
the bush administration went against basically the whole fucking UN. obviously there were/are lies being thrown around.
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 12, 2004 0:05:17 GMT -5
south park
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 12, 2004 0:10:03 GMT -5
sean hannity came to utah to the college uvsc. i saw some highlights on the news and he is honestly the biggest jackass on the face of the earth. it reminded me of a freakin' high school pep rally trying to stir everyone up against the "opostion" (michael moore/liberals). it's jackass's like him that are THE problem in america.
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 12, 2004 1:22:34 GMT -5
Everyone at Fox News is so far right... I think conservative is an understatement.
|
|
|
|
Post by skinnydude99 on Oct 12, 2004 9:14:05 GMT -5
Congress did give G.W. the go ahead but that was 2 fold:
1) To show Saddam that we meant buisiness so he would just give up
2) Also, they gave him the go ahead for war as a last resort, which isn't printed anywhere, but it was understood by all the members of congress. Only thing is that Bush didn't use it as a last resort, more like a second option.
|
|
CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 12, 2004 12:45:06 GMT -5
yea, i agree that people like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly are jackasses that horribly portray the republican party as a bunch of loudmouth, immature know-it-alls.
this election is going to split the freaking nation...no matter who wins...ugh...
|
|
|
|
Post by i12matt on Oct 12, 2004 17:02:24 GMT -5
yea, i agree that people like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly are jackasses that horribly portray the republican party as a bunch of loudmouth, immature know-it-alls. ... I thought that was the official party motto. |
|
CypressDrummer
Got Rad
Hahahahahaha...Thomas the Train...awesome
Posts: 44
|
Post by CypressDrummer on Oct 12, 2004 20:04:43 GMT -5
dude...i know that some republicans are close minded jerks...but thinking that ALL of us are like that is pretty ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 12, 2004 22:45:09 GMT -5
since this has turned into an all out political debate (sorta), tell me what you all think of my paper.
The War on Drugs
There is a huge debate, right now, over what is the most effective way to deal with problems behind drug use. It is no secret that people intoxicated on drugs are dangerous. People on drugs are a problem, and so far the government’s solution has been to go to war. This drug war has been a controversial solution to America’s drug use problem from the beginning. Before 1883, there were no federal, and few state prohibitions against the manufacture, sale, use, or possession of drugs. At the turn-of-the last century in America, people were free to use opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana with few restrictions. According to Flanagan, “Popular tonics, Coca-Cola and some other soft drinks contained traces of cocaine, and hundreds of medicines like Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup contained psychoactive drugs” (Flanagan, par. 1). Millions of Americans took opiates and cocaine, including many children. Parents would give their children medicines containing cocaine. Many of the "medicines" which contained cocaine and other drugs now banned were advertised widely, including in family magazines and health journals. The Civil War brought addiction out in the open. In field hospitals, soldiers often were given morphine, an opium derivative, as a painkiller. Many became addicted, and after their wounds had healed were said to suffer from "morphinism" or "soldier's disease" (Cooper, par. 36). By the turn of the century, there were some 300,000 addicts in the United States, mostly women and veterans. According to Cooper, addiction also started to become common among Southern black laborers. “By the early 1900s, claims were being made that cocaine promoted violent behavior among blacks, prompting calls to ban the drug” (Cooper, par. 40). Acting on pressure for tighter regulation of these drugs, Congress passed the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act, which taxed opium, morphine, heroin and coca products and required dispensers to be licensed. Ever tighter restrictions on drug sales were introduced by the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and the Opium Poppy Control Act of 1942. The most drastic anti-drug policy ever initiated in the United States targeted alcohol. Consumed widely throughout most of the country since the nation's earliest days, alcohol became a focus of growing concern in the late 19th century. Blaming alcohol for many social ills, from wife-beating to joblessness, many cities and states banned alcoholic beverages. Congress followed in 1919 by passing the Volstead Act, which added the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the production, sale, import or export of alcohol. Almost as soon as prohibition took effect, on Jan. 16, 1920, a multimillion-dollar black market in alcoholic beverages began to take shape, dominated by organized crime. After 14 years of attempts to stop demand for alcohol, the 21st Amendment was ratified, ending prohibition in 1933.
As drug use spread among youths in the 1960s, the bans were extended to include depressants and stimulants. President John F. Kennedy headed the first White House Conference on Narcotics and Drug Abuse in 1962. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan formally announced a “war on drugs.” This war on drugs had a budget of $1.5 billion when it started. This year, the federal government will spend over $19.2 billion of tax payer’s money to fight the war on drugs. Critics believe that the war on drugs has been a total failure along with a waste of tax revenue. The controversy is, has the war on drugs been an effective way to deal with the problems associated with drug use?
There are three main points for consideration in judging whether the drug war has been an effective way to deal with the drug problem. First, whether or not the drug war has done its job in keeping individuals off of drugs while making America a better place. Second, if the war on drugs goal to rid America of drugs is a rational one. Finally, whether the government’s decision to legalize certain drugs and illegalize others has been a logical solution.
In the article “Drugs Damage American Society” by William Bennett, the author argues that the war on drugs is crucial to American society. This is why Bennett believes that “legalization removes that incentive to stay away from a life of drugs. Let’s be honest, there are some people who are going to smoke crack whether it is legal or illegal. But by keeping it illegal, we maintain the criminal sanctions that persuade most people that the good life cannot be reached by dealing drugs” (Bennett 50). Bennett also states that “with legalization, drug use will go up, way up” (51). But according to much of Europe this is not a sensible drug policy. In Amsterdam, using marijuana is legal. Holland now has hundreds of "coffee shops" where marijuana is officially tolerated (Stossel par. 15). Users pick up small amounts of marijuana the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine at the store. This drug policy is an obvious contradiction to what Bennett believes will keep people from using drugs. But what has been the result of legalizing marijuana? Is everyone getting stoned? According to Stossel “In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot — in Holland, it's only 20 percent” (Stossel par. 19). Stossel says that “what Amsterdam police did was take the glamour out of drug use. The Dutch minister of health has said, ‘We've succeeded in making pot boring’” (Stossel par. 22). It is obvious from American history that the violence and crime that are associated with drug use, would not exist without drug prohibition. Without drug prohibition there wasn't the criminal culture that has arisen to exploit the profits that the drug war has produced. Drug cartels, drug gangs, pushers, and other elements of organized crime had no incentive to exist with no black market of drugs to fuel. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 homicides per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 homicides per 100,000. According to Zeese, the effects of the drug war are obvious. “In Columbia, the drug lords have declared war against the government for trying to enforce its narcotics laws. During a weekend in Los Angeles, fifteen people were murdered by gangs who sell drugs” (Zeese 37). The war on drugs has failed its mission to keep people off of drugs and make America a better place. Instead, drug use is up while the homicide rate is at an all time high.
go to the next page......
|
|
|
|
Post by inspectionstare on Oct 12, 2004 22:45:23 GMT -5
The war on drugs main goal is to stop individuals from using drugs. Is the war on drugs goal to rid America of illegal substances a rational one? According to Tovares the drug wars goal of a perfect, drug free, society is absurd. “We could never afford to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate the 23 million Americans who use drugs” (Tovares 43). America’s prisons are already full. Every 1 in 150 US citizens is in prison, over 2 million Americans in prison, 60% of Federal prisoners are in on drug charges, and there are over 3 million ex-convicts. Americans use twice as much marijuana, three times as much heroin, and five times as much cocaine as the average Dutch per capita. Americans account for half of the prohibited drugs consumed in the world. The statistics are staggering evidence that the drug war can not stop drug use. Also, the economic rule of supply and demand should not be over looked. When there is demand in any economy there will always be someone there to fill the supply. According to Tovares “major drug busts cut supply, which in turn increases demand. While the media, state and citizenry engage in victory dances in front of the television set, drug dealers are calculating their increased earnings” (42). In an article written in 1988 by The Senate Task Force for a Drug-Free America, the authors state a goal “to make America drug free by 1995. Any lesser goal is neither acceptable nor worthy of the American people” (Senate 18). Today in America, anyone who wants drugs can get drugs. The drug war’s goal to rid America of drugs is a contradiction to the law of supply and demand. It is also a joke to think that all drugs can be eliminated and drug users incarcerated.
Right now in America there are many drugs that are legal. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are just a few. During prohibition it was attempted to criminalize alcohol consumption. But almost as soon as prohibition took effect a multimillion-dollar black market in alcoholic beverages began to take shape, dominated by organized crime. Prohibition history is being repeated right now with the war on drugs. Drug consumption is criminalized, there is a multibillion-dollar black market dominated by organized crime identical to prohibition. So why has the government declared some drugs okay and others absolutely wrong? This is a question that puzzles many. According to Bennett about marijuana, “given the state of American education, the last thing we need is a policy that makes widely available a substance that impairs memory, concentration and attention span. Why in god’s name foster the use of a drug that makes you stupid” (Bennett 50). But in a study done by Jack Henningfield PhD. for the NIDA, Henningfield set up a numerical ranking, one through six, where six is the highest and one is the lowest. When it came to intoxication levels alcohol was the only drug that scored a six. (par. 1). In other words, alcohol has the highest intoxication levels of all other drugs. In the same study nicotine scored a two, heroin a five, cocaine a four, caffeine a one, and marijuana a three (Henningfield par. 1). With this same scale system Henningfield measured the dependence levels caused by different drugs. Nicotine was the only drug that scored a six on this scale. Heroin scored a five, cocaine a four, alcohol a three, caffeine a two, and marijuana a one (Henningfield par. 1). Some other facts about the lethality of different drugs are tobacco, between 1990 and 1994, accounted for 430,700 deaths. Alcohol, between 1990 and 1994, accounted for 110,640 deaths. And all other illicit drug induced deaths, between 1990 and 1994, accounted for 16,926 deaths. Two legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine, combined for 524,378 more deaths than all illegal drugs. The decision to legalize certain drugs and illegalize others has been an illogical one at best.
The government’s solution to the problem behind drug use has been to go to war. It is obvious that this war has been lost. The war has not kept individuals off of drugs. It has increased crime rates to all time highs while costing tax payers billions of dollars. It is impossible for the government to control the economic concept of supply and demand, this is why prohibition was a failure, and this is why today the war on drugs is a failure. It is time to use common sense and realize that some Americans have always, and will always use drugs. The legalization of drugs is the first step toward developing a more humane drug policy. Upon legalization drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them. It is not being suggested that the government stay totally out and leave the sale of drugs to corporations. But instead, the government should regulate quality and quantity of drugs to individuals, as well as provide treatment programs to addicts.
Upon legalization the government should act as a pharmacy. The packaging for the drugs should be plain, there should be no incentives for people to use. Instead, there should be incentives not to use, like warning labels and cautions. Like a pharmacy, drug users should be on file in the computer system and allowed certain amounts of drugs on their individual schedule. Not just anyone should be able to go pick up drugs, but if a substance is desired, there should be a mandatory “truths about drugs” counseling meeting. If drugs are still desired by the individual at that point, a set amount of a substance of choice should be made available. This kind of system should be set up for all addictive substances; alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, cocaine, etc. Corporations should be taken completely out of the drug business. Drugs are dangerous, legal and illegal drugs are lethal. This is why there should not be profit motivated corporations distributing, and positively marketing harmful substances. Finally, the government should provide treatment programs to anyone who wants them. The massive amounts of tax revenue saved from useless drug war policies should go toward helping drug users instead of destroying them with prison sentences and records. America needs to use common sense and address the problems associated with drug use as managers, not moralizers.
|
|
